20 of the worst Oscar winners in history

It’s Oscar season once again – and while Academy members scratch their heads trying to decide which of this year’s crop of worthy titles deserves to take home the big prize, we trawl the archives to uncover the worst Oscar offences of all time. From Julie Andrews warbling on a mountaintop to the time ‘Harry and the Hendersons’ walked away with a handful of gold, here are all the Academy’s biggest blunders in one handy list.

This is by no means a definitive rundown of all of Oscar’s shoddy decisions – we didn’t even have room to mention Celine Dion or ’Chicago’ – so if you really, really hate ‘Titanic’ or really, really love ‘Forrest Gump’, tell us about it in the comments box below.

It may be a popular classic that still holds the record for most tickets sold, but slavery-era epic ‘Gone With a Wind’ feels a mite creaky in this age of #OscarsSoWhite and ‘12 Years a Slave’. But that’s not the only reason we question Victor Fleming’s Oscar win. In truth he was only one of three directors to work on the film, so the award really should’ve been split between them.

Legendary producer-director Cecil B DeMille may be one of the key figures in the history of American cinema, but that doesn’t mean his films were all great. Gaudy circus story ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ may have packed them in at the box office, but you’d be hard-pressed to mount a strong artistic defence of this trashy, overlong epic.

That this bloated, tedious and wildly overpriced historical epic took any awards at all is disgraceful, but the one which really sticks in the craw is Cinematography. Not only does the film look like it’s been shot through a veneer of blancmange, but it triumphed over arguably the most visually sumptuous film ever made, ‘The Leopard’, which wasn’t even nominated.

The mid-'60s were a grim time for Hollywood both artistically and economically, as reflected by a truly lacklustre brace of Best Picture nominees at the 1966 awards: alongside Robert Wise’s excruciatingly cheerful nuns ‘n’ Nazis romp were ranged the likes of ‘Doctor Zhivago’, ‘Darling’ and something called ‘A Thousand Clowns’.

It may have looked slick, exciting and frightfully modern at the time, but Claude Lelouch’s paper-thin romantic romp now seems trite, dated and disgustingly self-satisfied – as relentlessly annoying as its twittering oh-so-French theme song.

Everyone loves Stevie Wonder, and with good reason, but even before the song was verbally lambasted by John Cusack in ‘High Fidelity’, it was widely accepted that this drippy, cloying romantic ballad is one of the soul pioneer’s low points.

In the mid-'80s, the Academy suddenly became obsessed with dishing out heaps of awards to grandiose, sweeping tales of life in foreign lands: see ‘Gandhi’, ‘Platoon’, and ‘The Last Emperor’. While each of those films is defensible, the same can’t really be said of this tiresome, glacially-paced colonial romance.

‘Academy Award winner “Harry and the Hendersons”’ must be one of the oddest accolades ever devised, but it’s nonetheless true. The make-up fraternity may simply have been rewarding FX legend Rick Baker for past achievements, but whatever their reasoning, this dire family monster-com had no right to be within sniffing distance of awards glory.

Sometimes the Academy seem to enjoy making things difficult for themselves. To nominate this good-natured but worryingly old-fashioned race-relations weepie rather than Spike Lee’s dynamic, challenging ‘Do the Right Thing’ was insult enough. To then give crotchety old ‘Miss Daisy’ four awards including the big prize was an unforgiveable injury.

Anthony Hopkins for ‘The Silence of the Lambs’, Al Pacino for ‘Scent of a Woman’

Best Actor, 1992, 1993

No actor ever won an Oscar for their subtle behaviour, but these two foot-thick slices of ham really stand out. Hopkins’s turn in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’ is admittedly terrific fun: sucking the marrow out of every villainous line, he comes on like William Shatner auditioning for ‘Dracula’. Pacino, meanwhile, is just a ball of mad, bellowing energy. Is this really the same man who played it so quiet and malevolent as Michael Corleone?

Three drippy ballads from Disney

Best Song, 1993, 1995, 1996

In the mid-1990s, the Walt Disney Company exerted a stranglehold over the Best Song category, resulting in wins for three unlistenably schmaltzy ballads – A Whole New World from ‘Aladdin’, Can You Feel the Love Tonight? from ‘The Lion King’ and Colors of the Wind from ‘Pocahontas’ – each of which combine lowest-common-denominator lovelorn lyrics, hideously catchy melodies and slushy string-based instrumentation.

By the late ‘90s, it seemed the Academy had decided to avert any chance of controversy by doling out awards to the blandest, most inoffensive movie they could find (see also: ‘Shakespeare in Love’, ‘Titanic’, ‘Chicago’). The worst offender in this category has to be Ron Howard’s entirely forgettable maths ‘n’ madness biopic, a disease-of-the-week TV movie which somehow escaped into the multiplex.

2005 was the year politics returned to Hollywood, with the Middle East (‘Munich’), gay rights (‘Brokeback Mountain’) and America’s troubled political history (‘Good Night and Good Luck’) all on the agenda. ‘Crash’ was a political film too, but in the lily-livered, hand-wringing, don’t-say-anything-unless-you-say-something-offensive-by-mistake vein – so of course it snatched the big prize.

Leaving aside the issue of quality – time has not been kind to James Cameron’s derivative sci-fi adventure – the real question is how a film created almost entirely within a computer can be nominated for Best Cinematography? Photographing a film is a tactile art, demanding in-depth knowledge of focal lengths, lenses and the way light moves. If all that work is done by a thousand nerds sweating over a thousand desktop computers, who’s really doing the ‘filming’? And does this mean Pixar movies are eligible?

Patriotic and positively pro-royal ‘The King’s Speech’ is a perfectly diverting slice of British cosiness. Still, it’s hardly Best Picture material – and the fact that helmsman Tom Hooper also took the Best Director prize is simply bizarre. His work is TV-standard: solid but unimpressive. And it looks even weaker next to David Fincher’s icy-cool ‘The Social Network’, which was also in the running.

In the four years since this moderately entertaining silent movie about backstage Hollywood life won Best Picture, has anyone ever said the words ‘you know what I feel like watching? “The Artist”’? To go from winning film’s biggest honour to being completely forgotten in 48 months is pretty impressive, but given the film’s cutesy tone, drama-free setup and general air of self-satisfied middle-of-the-road-ness it’s perhaps not surprising.

‘Birdman: or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance’

Best Picture, 2015

Alejandro González Iñárritu’s ‘Birdman’ divides critics – our reviewer gave it a five-star rave, while for others it’s a shallow, unfunny rant directed at the easiest of targets: actors and the media. But all that is irrelevant, because ‘Birdman’ had the misfortune to be released in the same year as a film that brought something genuinely new and refreshing to cinema. Richard Linklater’s ‘Boyhood’, filmed over 13 years, was a heartfelt, daring coming-of-age drama that stunned audiences worldwide. So of course it couldn’t win.

It could have been...‘Boyhood’, plain and simple.

Discover more-deserving Oscar winners

The Oscars are Hollywood’s annual chance to dress up to the nines, roll out the red carpet and remind the world how brilliant it is. To be fair, the Academy do get it right occasionally – so here’s our handy list of the best winners available to stream on Netflix UK.

Comments

I completley agree with some of these choices-"Birdman"; Anthony Hopkins; "The King's Speech"-but I must defend "Forrest Gump"-totally unique; laugh-out-loud funny; also incredibly moving, absorbing and very , very entertaining. My only gripe with it is that Gary Sinise didn't win Best Supporting Actor-his performance as Lieutenant Dan was breath-taking-just faultless-and the best thing about the film for me. At least it brought Gary to the attention of many people who hadn't seen him before, he is an amazing actor, and deserves proper recognition for his talent. And, having met him twice, I can also say he is a lovely guy as well.

#20... Wow. You'd give it to the cliche, predictable, and above all BORING "Boyhood" instead of "Birdman"? I DO NOT get the love for "Boyhood" AT ALL. I went to see this based on the hype, and I sat there for almost three hours being bored out of my mind at the complete inanity of it all. I seriously do not understand why people praise that overrated slogfest.

Let me be perfectly clear: I DO NOT CARE how long it took to make the film. Do not use that with me. Simply put, what was put on screen was not worth it, and how it was filmed is it's only notable aspect. The acting is bad to passable. The cinematography is very vanilla. The dialog is at times atrocious. It's as predictable as most TV melodramas (are you SERIOUSLY going to tell me you didn't see her marrying a series of assholes?). It's main character is entirely unlikable -- yeah, I AGREED with the girlfriend who dumped him and I don't think I was supposed to.

I was RELIEVED when it didn't win best picture. "Birdman" all the way!

Bird man was by far a pretty good movie, I also thought the director, screenplay writers did an amazing job. But then again that's your opinion and this is my opinion. People have different perspectives, but I agree, boyhood should have revived more recognition than bird man did considering how long it took to film.

What -- no "Titanic" on this list? That was a stupidly overblown, over-romanticized, over-budgeted retelling of a truly compelling "real-life story" -- One of the dumbest movies I've had to sit through. "A Night to Remember" was much better.

I suspect that the main reason Boyhood lost was because nobody ever talked about it being a good film, al the publicity and expectations about it winning were based upon the way it had been filmed and the time it took as if the actual quality of the movie was irrelevant. Birdman may have just been more interesting.

Oh dear, who wrote this. It is pretty obvious that the Oscars don't often don't reflect what are the best films and performances, however there are some strong contenders on this list. The 'Sounds of Music' is a beautiful directed film and 'Forest Gump' is an incredibly witty and powerful film.

You were going so well until you mentioned Dead Poets Society as an alternative winner - a film which, had it won, should have topped the list as the worst to ever win any award. Maudlin, sentimental, badly imagined and realised drivel.

Also. gone with the wind is the only film from that era that almost anyone could name - which means it has stood the test of time and deserved the Oscar.

@John B Rocky's director did not deserve the award over Network's Sidney Lumet or Taxi Driver's Martin Scorsese. Those are two of the greatest directors of all time, at their best, and my parents know their names. I have no idea who directed Rocky.

@Claire E@John B Taxi Driver is the most Over-Rated piece of drivel I have ever had the misfortune to watch.I made myself watch the damn thing & thought is THIS what everyone has been raving about ?It's crap !

Forrest Gump is not brain dead patriotism, it is a masterpiece work about existentialism. Pulp Fiction is amazing, but what makes it better, because its edgy? If your mad that Forrest Gump plays tribute to American History, why are you not mad pulp fiction plays tribute to the Exploitation genre? Forrest Gump should be every bodys role model, he is un judging and full of love and life.

@John D forrest gump had no clear story, lots of weird & worthless incidents(i.e running for months without any reason). unnecessary lengthy, overall a good dark comedy film for teens but not good enough to win oscar. shawshank redemption was 100 times better than that

Forrest Gump and Out of Africa were travesties and emblematic of the pablum the academy loves. The English Patient could have also been included. And you should have made the list 21 to give room to Chicago, the terrible on all levels movie/musical.

Best director- Bob Fosse for Cabaret over Francis Ford Coppola for The Godfather
Best Actor- Art Carney over Al Pacino and Jack Nicholson
Ordinary People and Robert Redford over Martin Scorsese and Raging Bull
Dances with Wolves and Kevin Costner over Martin Scorsese and Goodfellas
Scorsese again for Aviator losing to Clint Eastwood

I agree with most but not Forrest Gump. I love Pulp Fiction, Shawshank and Quiz Show but Gump was groundbreaking for special effects and editing. Not to mention the directing, score, acting, and camera work were unbelievable. Whereas the other 3 had some of those elements, Gump had all those and easily deserved Best Picture

The Secret in Their Eyes was a much better movie than The White Ribbon, a totally pretentious oscar-begging movie with no heart in it at all. Crash was also the best movie in its category that year. It was an outsider but truly the best one.
I am utterly surprised that you left outside of your list Gwyneth Paltrow (Shakespeare in Love) winning instead of Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth) in 1999. In my opinion, that was the most undeserved Oscar even given.

"doesn’t really stand up to modern scrutiny" ---- what can? two things: 1) in about 2 years, your use of modern will be outdated, and 2) i don't think Victor Fleming knew or could even consider what could hold up in 75 years...he just set out to make the best movie he could..

This is one of the most tedious, unconstructive lists I've ever read. Some of your choices are good and some of them are bad, but what makes the entire article so much worse is the childish, flippant, and altogether condescending tone. Grow up.

"...the fact remains that ‘Avatar’ may be slick and action-packed but it’s not a particularly lovely film to look at, unless you’re a big fan of puce green and baby blue."
Really, though? It's a movie that uses the stunning visual effects/landscapes/characters as the main selling point. I can totally understand how a person would possibly dislike the movie, as a whole... but, how can you seriously say that the visual aspect of the film wasn't extraordinarily beautiful?

A Beautiful Mind forgettable? What is wrong with you? Although I do agree The Fellowship of the Ring is a far better choice, you can't possibly call A Beautiful Mind forgettable and made-for-TV-escaped-to-cinema piece. Also, Tom Hanks in Forest? Say what you want about the movie, but his performance is brilliant. To each his own, I guess...

Tom Huddleston, you are amazing. I wonder, do you stay up nights trying to come up with clever put-downs and then quickly write them down when you get a "Eureka?" If not, you just have a natural knack for nasty insults, which would only be a compliment to drunken white trash. To say that Anthony Hopkins didn't deserve the Oscar for Silence of the Lambs is like saying The Beatles didn't deserve the Grammy for Revolver. While the Academy almost never represents the year's best movies and nearly always nominates the same handful of safe, big budget dramas (and one indie) for everything, you actually managed to denigrate some of their best choices. Congratulations.

I agree with most of your choices, although the list could've gone on another eighty slides. The Academy gets it wrong more often than not, and the Oscars have become a giant popularity contest. If the award for best picture actually went to the best film of the year, there would be many more foreign films nominated. How is it that the Blind Side is nominated for best picture but not Pan's Labyrinth? (Different years, I know).

I think you missed Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls. The award is for acting, right? Nobody who votes at the Academy noticed that she gave a one note, amateur performance? In the original stage musical Effie White is the lead character who goes from wide eyed young girl, to disillusioned young woman until finally a proud woman who triumphs. Jennifer Hudson gave us bitter, angry girl from beginning to end.

The Titanic was a self-serving and tedious movie, allowing its two characters, representatives of both lower and richer classes to come together -- big deal.
No mention was ever that more rich white guys survived than poor women and their children. And the centurian proclaims that her romance liberated her from...well, everything.
Forest Gumb is a sordid story about how one not-too-bright character's unintentional behavior continued to change history of its time. It goes down with all the tripe that leaves audiences feeling better about themselves. The Shashank Redemption might as well won best picture so certain hope would triumph against adversity.

I don't really understand why you've decided to put The Sound of Music in as a 'worst Oscar winner'. It's clearly a succesful film, and by your own description the most promising out of the other nominees? In fact, this entire list bar a couple is ridiculously innacurate.

You are very right and VERY wrong in this list. The right: Crash is terrible. The wrong: The Secret in their Eyes is beautiful. You also seem to have a big misunderstanding of context. Even dated performances deserved awards recognition at their given time, because they tapped into something manifest in the moment. Anthony Hopkins, for example, represented something aesthetically and culturally terrifying at a time when Bundy, Gein, and Heidnik were haunting our headlines.